Wednesday, February 16, 2022

CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND ITS ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

 

 


 

In an interview with Christianity Today, CRT advocate and professed Christian Jemar Tisby stated:
 
·       In this sense, there’s no such thing as ‘pure biblical interpretation.’ All our interpretation is shaped by our histories. This isn’t to say there are no timeless truths or universal principles, but it is to say that even the questions we ask are going to vary across people groups and across time periods.” https://www.christianpost.com/voices/jamar-tisby-and-critical-race-theory.html
 
Of course, we are vulnerable to the influence of our cultures and “our histories.” We also admit that our interpretation of the Bible is a subjective process, but so too is our interpretation of our visual cues. Nevertheless, we can drive our car cross-country without an accident because our interpretation of these cues is accurate.
 
We can even accurately interpret the street signs reading, “McDonalds at exist 42” or the speed limit sign reading “60 MPH.” It is also possible to read these signs wrongly as just a suggestion of 60 MPH or as a minimum of 60 MPH. However, few do, despite their cultural differences. Nor would these differences of opinion hold up in court. Why not? The court reasonably expects that these signs can be perfectly understood despite the subjective processes involved.

Even though Biblical interpretation is more demanding, we too can reasonably hold a fellow Christian to account for stealing from the offering bowl, even if this thief claims  these offerings can be freely taken to give to the poor.
 
Therefore, it is not enough for Tisby to dismiss the longstanding Biblical teachings of the Church, even if they might “vary across people groups and across time periods.”  If it is impossible to decide which group’s Biblical interpretation is the most accurate, then the Bible is totally useless, and we should just eat, drink, and be merry.
 
Instead, to be credible, Tisby must Biblically demonstrate that these traditional interpretations had been wrong. Perhaps instead, Tisby’s and CRT’s interpretations has been wrong! And perhaps it is their interpretations, which have been adversely twisted by their own desires.
 
We need to talk rather than to dismiss the possibility of meaningful talk.

2 comments:

Paul Scott Pruett said...

Tisby is correct in the sense that we all come to scripture with our own subjective and cultural biases. However, good biblical exegetes have all along understood this and attempted to bring objectively rational processes and the cultural context of the authors into their interpretive frameworks. The fact that there are some notable differences in systematic theologies does not invalidate the methodology, it only exposes how deeply entrenched our biases sometimes are and echos the ambiguity of certain areas of scripture in the non-essentials. People often fixate on the differences and subjective problems in order to divert attention from the vast body of agreement among those who hold to an orthodox view of Christianity and the authority of scripture.

Daniel Mann said...

Paul, Very well said! You are right that we approach the Scriptures with many biases. However, I have noted in my own life that the closer I get to Jesus, the less I am concerned about being right and more concerned I am about the mind of Christ and understanding as He does. We become more objective.